Simple economics will dictate the fate of GMOs. Sure they aren't needed to feed Western populations, but you have to remember that there are something like 700 million people who are starving.
All of whom could be fed if it wasn't for conflict or politics. All of those staving in Zimbabwe are starving because the president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe forced many white African off of their farms. Food grown in Zimbabwe used to be a big foreign currency earner, after being able to feed the population. But when Mugabe forced farmer off their farms he gave the farms to his cronies who didn't know how to farm. Elsewhere, 150,000 farmers in India have committed suicide because they can't afford to compeat with EU and US agribusinesses. These businesses can grow then export to India food cheaper than Indian farmers can grow food because they receive billions of taxpayer dollars. Cutting the massive farm subsides these businesses are handed will do more to help Indian farmers than giving them GE seed they would have to pay for year after year. The reason the WTO talks failed was because when Brazil, India, and other nations demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop giving farmers in those nations hugh subsidies, the EU and Japan refused to. The US offered to lower subsides some but not much. Some Indian farmers are calling for farm produce to be left out of any WTO deal. In a letter to the Prime Minister farmers wrote: "Till date, the government has been unable to force the United States and the European Union to scale down their farm subsidies. It has also failed to make these trading blocs reduce their import tariffs and stop dumping subsidised agriculture commodities into India markets. Instead of a bad deal that fails to protect the interests of the farmers, it would be better to keep agriculture out of WTO negotiations,"
"That sounds rather cool to me (being interested in startups and things anyway). How do you do it?"
Do a little Googling around for "S" corporations. There are forms you need....and it varies a bit by state to state, so you might start with contacting your States dept of labor.
A person could go the S corporation route however an LLC or Limited Liability Company may be a better route. Whoever wants to start a business of their own really needs to investigate what sort of structure the business will be, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation (C or S), or LLC. Usually they should start with their local government, where the business will be located.
Really, if you want to work your own hours, you should work for yourself -- be a consultant, make a ton of money on projects you self-select, take vacations when you want them, or just start your own company.
This is easier said than done. Anyone who consults, freelances, or starts their own business has to wear more than one hat. The person also has to manage a business, do the accounting including billings and accounts payable, customer relations, and finding contracts. Unless the person either partners with someone else, or hires someone to do it for them, they have to wear 4 or 5 hats. I'd rather work for myself, being on disability I don't work at all now, but most people can't juggle the different responsibilities. My sister started her business with some friends of hers and I bet she puts in 70 plus hours a week, some of that she can do from home, but it seems she lives to work not work to live.
"Flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance" is something all companies should be able to provide.
For some positions flexible tyme, and telecommuting, is possible but not for many others. Now, if more people who can do so were able to schedule flexible work tymes or to telecommute it would affect things like rush hour traffic. so even if a person couldn't have flexible work hours they would still benefit.
Look at the US auto and airline industries to get a view into the consequences of implementing a union.
Yea let's look at airlines. A union agrees to cuts in benefit so the airline won't do bankrupt but then the airline executives give themselves hugh bonuses. While pilots for American Airlines took a 23.5 percent cut in pay in 2003 the executives gave themselves bonuses of about $250 million.
I think that you are just on a crusade against GMOs.
I don't see any need for GMOs, in that sense I am against GMOs. If it's not needed then the only reason for them is to line the pockets of those who create GMOs. I also want choice and well as the info needed to make an informed choice.
Easy to read and understand, no? Too bad none of those things actually matters when it comes to public health. Certainly not as much as the sweeteners, fat, and empty carbs that go into products.
I agree with the table layout, I really like it. Both with the idea of a table on a label, tables are used for nutrition facts and with/. not allowing html tables. Sometimes I think think it would be good to be able to add graphics as well. Graphics though could eat up a lot of storage but table wouldn't.
You somehow missed the "organic sweet" part, which is DEFINITELY not required by law.
And you missed where I quoted you as saying All that is required is "cream, culture". While "organic sweet" isn't needed the "milk" part is needed. And seeing as how Organic Valley is organic it makes since they want to stress it. Another thing, if it's so hard the add GMO to labels then how can a business add "organic"?
How is it a copout? If you are worried about people's health, then you need them to read the ingredients
But you advocate not labeling, and guess what, the ingredients are listed on the label.
Making labels easier to read is more important, IMHO.
If people don't read labels then making them easier serves no purpose whereas not including information prevents those who do read labels from making an informed choice.
I think you are being disingenuous - has anyone's throat suddenly closed up due to a GMO? Peanut allergies are nasty and widespread enough to note it on a package.
You were the one advocating not requiring labels not me, and if noting the presence of peanuts on the package isn't labeling then what is it?
That's fancy-pants labeling done on something "healthy" or trying to appeal to the natural/organic crowd. All that is required is "cream, culture". I have no problem with voluntarily labeling something as GMO-Free to appeal to that crowd.
Milk cream is only one type of cream, as is milk culture only one type of culture. So "milk" is in fact needed otherwise a person won't know what type of cream or culture. But I guess you've never had a cream topping on ice cream. Me, I've used different cultures when brewing beers and wines, yes I used to homebrew. And none of them were milk cultures.
Each of those things is important to someone out there, just as GMOs are important to you. Can you imagine the size of the ingredients list if all of those things were addressed?
I see this as noting more than a copout, as if people don't need all that labeling garbage.
I much prefer voluntary labeling
So food that has peanuts in don't need to ba labeled as containing peanuts?
I also noticed you didn't even respond to whether GMOs were needed, I provided evidence they weren't needed at all.
I'm talking about the fact that Roundup-ready corn, which is the genetically modified organism in this instance, will be pushed out by native species if we stop applying Roundup.
So invasive species don't exist? People would argue with you that native species will push out non native species, just ask some people about the Kudzu invasion between eastern Texas to the mid Atlantic states. Kudzu isn't native to the US, it was imported from Japan. Fact is is invasive species are a big deal in some places and there is concern GMO corn will pose a threat to native corn in Mexico as an invasive species. Here's an article on how "Biofuel Crops Could Become Superweeds".
You cannot feed 6 billion people through organic, non-GMO farming.
BS, the biggest reasons people starve is because of conflicts, politics, and subsidies. Farmers don't want to grow crops on fields where a battle is fought. Nor do they want what they grow to be taken from them, then they need distribute the food. Politicians, like President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe can take a country that's a breadbasket and produces more than enough food for it's population, food was Zimbabwe's main export and generated enough income to pay for any imports needed, before Mugabe came to power into a nation that needs aid. Once Mugabe came to power he forced most if not all of the white farmers off their land then gave the farms to his cronies. Now once fertile land is not able to produce enough, those the land was given to didn't know how to farm. Now Zimbabwe depends on foreign aid to feed the country. The third problem are the hugh subsidies the EU, Japan, and the US give to it's farmers. The billions of dollars in farm subsidies the US gives to US agribusinesses, Japan who gives about as much, and the EU who gives even more drive poor farmers off their farms in the Third World. How can a Mexican corn farmer compete with Cargill who receives billions and can grow then export to Mexico and sell corn there cheaper than a Mexican farmer can grow it? With few exceptions all those starving starve because of money and politics.
As for whether or not organic farming can feed the world, there are studies that conclude organic farming can indeed fee the world. Some studies conclude organics produce more in the same amount of place while other show it produces a little less. From University of Michigan, Organic farming can feed the world, U-M study shows". From the BBC: "Organic farming can 'feed the world'".
Fact is is Genetic Engineering and GMOs aren't needed to feed the world.
I don't understand the need to label produce all of the sudden
Food has been labeled for a long tyme. I went shopping a little while ago and just grabbed one of the containers I emptied when I got back, it's a box for butter and it lists all ingredients, "pasteurized organic sweet cream (milk), microbial culture." A person might that that's because it's organic but the fact is is all processed food has to have a label listing ingredients. I challenge anyone to find a package of processed food in any grocery store in the US without such a label. Requiring GMOs to be labeled as well does not raise a significant bar.
In fact, it is my understanding that in order to qualify for the "organic" label, you have to use non-GMO seeds... so why not just buy produce labeled "organic"
Yes, organic certification does bar GMOs, however it also bars petrochemical herbicides and pesticides, and so call conventional farmers in the US use lots of them. Here's the top 50 "Pesticide(s) Use on Corn in 2005". The last I heard the only crop in the US that uses more is cotton.
I don't see the need to label GMO food just because it is some people's pet cause
Question, if you're so sure GMOs are safe are do you oppose labeling of GMOs? Cost isn't a real issue so the only reason to oppose it is because of fear people won't buy it.
Frankly, that is too much information and consumers would not be well served.
Labels are very important, and while not everyone reads them, a lot of people do read labels. Some, like me, are required to read them. Being hyperglycemic I have to watch my carbohydrate intake. And the only way to know what it is if I read labels for ingredients that have carbohydrates. For instance the butter above has none. But according to you, if someone is allergic to a food item they don't need to know if food has it. Some are allergic to peanuts, but peanuts shouldn't be listed on a label.
I don't really know much about it but it seems an "average" OSS project being nonprofit won't have the financial resources a business will have. MS has a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars and a fraction of that should be enough to document all the APIs, system calls, or whatever.
Sure, but I don't think that's relevant here. Microsoft was on trial for abusing a monopoly position, not for being a successful profit-making business. The remedy is intended to allow others to compete fairly in markets where Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
In order for a business to compeat in software don't they need to have access o the operating system's API, system calls, or whatever? It would seem to me to be an advantage to have over those who don't. With only Microsoft having them they can use it to compeat unfairly in a given market.
The article doesn't mention if each open source project has to pay that fee or if the entire open source community can pay the fee once and cover all open source projects.
"The European Commission said Microsoft will now charge a one-time fee of 10,000 euros to firms that want "complete and accurate" technical information on Windows software."
"In addition, it will also allow the data to go to open source software developers. "
Ok so I didn't read the whole thing, however as I just said in another post not five minutes ago, hardly anything has even been said about whether there is even any need for GMOs, and I contend there isn't a need. If there is no need, other than lining the pockets of Monsanto and other corporations, why have them?
If a GMO escapes into the wild, then most likely it will be wiped out by the native species.
Then superweeds resistant to Roundup don't exist? I just realized something, despite all this debate on GE and GMOs nothing has really been said about any need for GMOs, the fact is is they are not needed.
Keeping an open mind is a great idea - which is why I'm not going to boycott GMO foods just because they are new.
Good for you. As for myself, I want choice and if I want to wait until GMOs are thoroughly tested I need labels stating if an item is or uses any GMOs. Can we agree on labeling? But if you ask Monsanto or other providers and venders they are against labeling for GMOs. If GMOs are so good these people would be fighting for labeling, they could use it as a selling point saying how good GMOs are. Companies lobbied in Europe though to stop mandatory labels. When the EU required mandatory labeling though the US and US businesses sued the EU in the WTO against it: "Final WTO Tribunal Decision on GMO Policy Reaffirms Lower Panel: WTO Wades into Food Fight, but Stops Short of Ruling Against Underlying GMO Policy"
Besides, fining MS is like siphoning your water from the Niagara falls - sure you get wet but you don't make a dent. I have held the view for a long time that fines for companies should be based on a percentage setting, that way firms of all sizes are hit more equally. Or maybe a formula based on size, income and percentage - there must be an improvement on current methods of setting penalties.
I read somewhere where EU rules allow a fine of 5% of a company's worldwide revenue. Seeing as how MS's 2007 revenue was 51,122,000,000 the fine could of been as high as $2.5B. Or is it 5% of profits? With profits of $40,429,000,000 that would still be more than 2B dollars. So this fine is nothing more than a light slap on the wrist.
it's not meant to be about putting Microsoft's products in the public domain, is it?
It wasn't about putting MS's products into the public domain, it was about making it possible to create interoperability and for software developers to write software compatible with MS software. No source code is required to be released at all.
Well, it's a start at least. What did the US do about Microsofts monopoly?
After Clinton's Justice Department had Microsoft on the ropes Bush's new JD didn't even slap MS on the wrists. Of course Bush's admin is more big business friendly.
They do mention open source developers explicitly, so yes, I do think the point is to make us happy.
I don't think 10,000 euros is very open source developer friendly, unless you can get 10,000 developers to contribute to a fund then pass around the specs. But there's still the licenses to be paid to MS.
I'm not ignoring cross pollination of corn. You keep insisting that corn cross pollinates with pigweed. It doesn't. Period.
No I don't insist corn cross pollinates with ragweed no matter what you say, instead I admit I don't know what happened. I also admit Horizontal gene transfer is possible. Oh, and if it's impossible for unrelated plants to cross pollinate, perhaps you should tell Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena that as well as other scientists:
"Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena, is reported to have new evidence, as yet unpublished, that genes engineered into transgenic plants have transferred via pollen to bacteria and yeasts living in the gut of bee larvae(1)."
"If Prof. Kaatz' claim can be substantiated, it indicates that the new genes and gene-constructs introduced into transgenic crops and other transgenic organisms can spread, not just by ordinary cross-pollination or cross-breeding to closely related species, but by the genes and gene-constructs invading the genomes (the totality of the organisms' own genetic material) of completely unrelated species, including the microorganisms living in the gut of animals eating transgenic material."
"This finding is not unexpected. Some scientists have been drawing attention to this possibility recently(2), but the warnings actually date back to the mid-1970s when genetic engineering began. Hundreds of scientists around the world are now demanding a moratorium on all environmental releases of transgenic organisms on grounds of safety(3), and horizontal gene transfer is one of the major considerations."
"Some of us have argued that the hazards of 'horizontal' gene transfer to unrelated species are inherent to genetic engineering(4). The genes and gene-constructs created in genetic engineering have never existed in billions of years of evolution. They consist of genetic material originating from bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance genes. They are designed to cross all species barriers and to invade genomes. The spread of such genes and gene-constructs have the potential to make infectious diseases untreatable and to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases."
Notice where is says "completely unrelated species".
Rather biased there, isn't it?
And not accepting it because it has a bias isn't being biased either? I admit it's one thing to falsify data or whatever, but are they doing that?
Hardly seems to be good science to me.
And your not doing the same? If it's wrong, what's wrong with it? The same with the Horizontal Gene Transfer linked to above (Transgenic pollen)?
Okay, so you are claiming that horizontal gene transfer took place between corn and the weed.
No I'm not claiming, saying, it happened, I'm saying it's possible, I even included a link that explained how it could. Do you accept that it could happen or do you only accept natural selection? As for whether it did or not I don't know. And isn't that what science is supposed to do, look at all the possibilities?
Just as with Sky diving, in science an open mind is valuable. Though I can be stubborn at tymes, seeing as how the docs and therapists said being stubborn kept me alive after an accident I should of died from being stubborn can be good (though bad in my case), I try to keep an open mind and have been known to change it.
That means that all authority is under constant threat and any hierarchical chain of command is very uncertain.
As far as I'm concerned all authority should be questioned and afraid. Government becomes dictatorial when it does not fear the population it governs.
Thomas Aquinas
Unfortunately I don't recall much about Thomas Aquinas. I thought he wrote "The Apology" but doing a quick search all I found was the "Apology" Plato wrote in defense of Socrates.
it sounds like a lot of work would be required for your average OSS project to comply with this ruling. If it's unfair to expect it of them, why is it fair to expect it of a business?
I don't really know much about it but it seems an "average" OSS project being nonprofit won't have the financial resources a business will have. MS has a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars and a fraction of that should be enough to document all the APIs, system calls, or whatever. If MS isn't already documenting them then they need to work on their business practices, how does one team or unit know how to work with something from another unit or team?
You can't use a requirement that a monopoly allow interoperability as an excuse to get access to all their source code and trade secrets
I haven't heard anything about the source code being required, where did you see that?
Slashdot Mirror
Simple economics will dictate the fate of GMOs. Sure they aren't needed to feed Western populations, but you have to remember that there are something like 700 million people who are starving.
All of whom could be fed if it wasn't for conflict or politics. All of those staving in Zimbabwe are starving because the president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe forced many white African off of their farms. Food grown in Zimbabwe used to be a big foreign currency earner, after being able to feed the population. But when Mugabe forced farmer off their farms he gave the farms to his cronies who didn't know how to farm. Elsewhere, 150,000 farmers in India have committed suicide because they can't afford to compeat with EU and US agribusinesses. These businesses can grow then export to India food cheaper than Indian farmers can grow food because they receive billions of taxpayer dollars. Cutting the massive farm subsides these businesses are handed will do more to help Indian farmers than giving them GE seed they would have to pay for year after year. The reason the WTO talks failed was because when Brazil, India, and other nations demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop giving farmers in those nations hugh subsidies, the EU and Japan refused to. The US offered to lower subsides some but not much. Some Indian farmers are calling for farm produce to be left out of any WTO deal. In a letter to the Prime Minister farmers wrote: "Till date, the government has been unable to force the United States and the European Union to scale down their farm subsidies. It has also failed to make these trading blocs reduce their import tariffs and stop dumping subsidised agriculture commodities into India markets. Instead of a bad deal that fails to protect the interests of the farmers, it would be better to keep agriculture out of WTO negotiations,"
Falcon"That sounds rather cool to me (being interested in startups and things anyway). How do you do it?"
Do a little Googling around for "S" corporations. There are forms you need....and it varies a bit by state to state, so you might start with contacting your States dept of labor.
A person could go the S corporation route however an LLC or Limited Liability Company may be a better route. Whoever wants to start a business of their own really needs to investigate what sort of structure the business will be, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation (C or S), or LLC. Usually they should start with their local government, where the business will be located.
FalconReally, if you want to work your own hours, you should work for yourself -- be a consultant, make a ton of money on projects you self-select, take vacations when you want them, or just start your own company.
This is easier said than done. Anyone who consults, freelances, or starts their own business has to wear more than one hat. The person also has to manage a business, do the accounting including billings and accounts payable, customer relations, and finding contracts. Unless the person either partners with someone else, or hires someone to do it for them, they have to wear 4 or 5 hats. I'd rather work for myself, being on disability I don't work at all now, but most people can't juggle the different responsibilities. My sister started her business with some friends of hers and I bet she puts in 70 plus hours a week, some of that she can do from home, but it seems she lives to work not work to live.
Falcon"Flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance" is something all companies should be able to provide.
For some positions flexible tyme, and telecommuting, is possible but not for many others. Now, if more people who can do so were able to schedule flexible work tymes or to telecommute it would affect things like rush hour traffic. so even if a person couldn't have flexible work hours they would still benefit.
FalconLook at the US auto and airline industries to get a view into the consequences of implementing a union.
Yea let's look at airlines. A union agrees to cuts in benefit so the airline won't do bankrupt but then the airline executives give themselves hugh bonuses. While pilots for American Airlines took a 23.5 percent cut in pay in 2003 the executives gave themselves bonuses of about $250 million.
FalconI think that you are just on a crusade against GMOs.
I don't see any need for GMOs, in that sense I am against GMOs. If it's not needed then the only reason for them is to line the pockets of those who create GMOs. I also want choice and well as the info needed to make an informed choice.
Easy to read and understand, no? Too bad none of those things actually matters when it comes to public health. Certainly not as much as the sweeteners, fat, and empty carbs that go into products.
I agree with the table layout, I really like it. Both with the idea of a table on a label, tables are used for nutrition facts and with /. not allowing html tables. Sometimes I think think it would be good to be able to add graphics as well. Graphics though could eat up a lot of storage but table wouldn't.
FalconYou somehow missed the "organic sweet" part, which is DEFINITELY not required by law.
And you missed where I quoted you as saying All that is required is "cream, culture". While "organic sweet" isn't needed the "milk" part is needed. And seeing as how Organic Valley is organic it makes since they want to stress it. Another thing, if it's so hard the add GMO to labels then how can a business add "organic"?
How is it a copout? If you are worried about people's health, then you need them to read the ingredients
But you advocate not labeling, and guess what, the ingredients are listed on the label.
Making labels easier to read is more important, IMHO.
If people don't read labels then making them easier serves no purpose whereas not including information prevents those who do read labels from making an informed choice.
I think you are being disingenuous - has anyone's throat suddenly closed up due to a GMO? Peanut allergies are nasty and widespread enough to note it on a package.
You were the one advocating not requiring labels not me, and if noting the presence of peanuts on the package isn't labeling then what is it?
FalconThat's fancy-pants labeling done on something "healthy" or trying to appeal to the natural/organic crowd. All that is required is "cream, culture". I have no problem with voluntarily labeling something as GMO-Free to appeal to that crowd.
Milk cream is only one type of cream, as is milk culture only one type of culture. So "milk" is in fact needed otherwise a person won't know what type of cream or culture. But I guess you've never had a cream topping on ice cream. Me, I've used different cultures when brewing beers and wines, yes I used to homebrew. And none of them were milk cultures.
Each of those things is important to someone out there, just as GMOs are important to you. Can you imagine the size of the ingredients list if all of those things were addressed?
I see this as noting more than a copout, as if people don't need all that labeling garbage.
I much prefer voluntary labeling
So food that has peanuts in don't need to ba labeled as containing peanuts?
I also noticed you didn't even respond to whether GMOs were needed, I provided evidence they weren't needed at all.
FalconI'm talking about the fact that Roundup-ready corn, which is the genetically modified organism in this instance, will be pushed out by native species if we stop applying Roundup.
So invasive species don't exist? People would argue with you that native species will push out non native species, just ask some people about the Kudzu invasion between eastern Texas to the mid Atlantic states. Kudzu isn't native to the US, it was imported from Japan. Fact is is invasive species are a big deal in some places and there is concern GMO corn will pose a threat to native corn in Mexico as an invasive species. Here's an article on how "Biofuel Crops Could Become Superweeds".
You cannot feed 6 billion people through organic, non-GMO farming.
BS, the biggest reasons people starve is because of conflicts, politics, and subsidies. Farmers don't want to grow crops on fields where a battle is fought. Nor do they want what they grow to be taken from them, then they need distribute the food. Politicians, like President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe can take a country that's a breadbasket and produces more than enough food for it's population, food was Zimbabwe's main export and generated enough income to pay for any imports needed, before Mugabe came to power into a nation that needs aid. Once Mugabe came to power he forced most if not all of the white farmers off their land then gave the farms to his cronies. Now once fertile land is not able to produce enough, those the land was given to didn't know how to farm. Now Zimbabwe depends on foreign aid to feed the country. The third problem are the hugh subsidies the EU, Japan, and the US give to it's farmers. The billions of dollars in farm subsidies the US gives to US agribusinesses, Japan who gives about as much, and the EU who gives even more drive poor farmers off their farms in the Third World. How can a Mexican corn farmer compete with Cargill who receives billions and can grow then export to Mexico and sell corn there cheaper than a Mexican farmer can grow it? With few exceptions all those starving starve because of money and politics.
As for whether or not organic farming can feed the world, there are studies that conclude organic farming can indeed fee the world. Some studies conclude organics produce more in the same amount of place while other show it produces a little less. From University of Michigan, Organic farming can feed the world, U-M study shows". From the BBC: "Organic farming can 'feed the world'".
Fact is is Genetic Engineering and GMOs aren't needed to feed the world.
FalconI don't understand the need to label produce all of the sudden
Food has been labeled for a long tyme. I went shopping a little while ago and just grabbed one of the containers I emptied when I got back, it's a box for butter and it lists all ingredients, "pasteurized organic sweet cream (milk), microbial culture." A person might that that's because it's organic but the fact is is all processed food has to have a label listing ingredients. I challenge anyone to find a package of processed food in any grocery store in the US without such a label. Requiring GMOs to be labeled as well does not raise a significant bar.
In fact, it is my understanding that in order to qualify for the "organic" label, you have to use non-GMO seeds... so why not just buy produce labeled "organic"
Yes, organic certification does bar GMOs, however it also bars petrochemical herbicides and pesticides, and so call conventional farmers in the US use lots of them. Here's the top 50 "Pesticide(s) Use on Corn in 2005". The last I heard the only crop in the US that uses more is cotton.
I don't see the need to label GMO food just because it is some people's pet cause
Question, if you're so sure GMOs are safe are do you oppose labeling of GMOs? Cost isn't a real issue so the only reason to oppose it is because of fear people won't buy it.
Frankly, that is too much information and consumers would not be well served.
Labels are very important, and while not everyone reads them, a lot of people do read labels. Some, like me, are required to read them. Being hyperglycemic I have to watch my carbohydrate intake. And the only way to know what it is if I read labels for ingredients that have carbohydrates. For instance the butter above has none. But according to you, if someone is allergic to a food item they don't need to know if food has it. Some are allergic to peanuts, but peanuts shouldn't be listed on a label.
FalconI don't really know much about it but it seems an "average" OSS project being nonprofit won't have the financial resources a business will have. MS has a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars and a fraction of that should be enough to document all the APIs, system calls, or whatever.
Sure, but I don't think that's relevant here. Microsoft was on trial for abusing a monopoly position, not for being a successful profit-making business. The remedy is intended to allow others to compete fairly in markets where Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
In order for a business to compeat in software don't they need to have access o the operating system's API, system calls, or whatever? It would seem to me to be an advantage to have over those who don't. With only Microsoft having them they can use it to compeat unfairly in a given market.
FalconThe article doesn't mention if each open source project has to pay that fee or if the entire open source community can pay the fee once and cover all open source projects.
While it doesn't directly say it, an article from the BBC says:
"The European Commission said Microsoft will now charge a one-time fee of 10,000 euros to firms that want "complete and accurate" technical information on Windows software."
"In addition, it will also allow the data to go to open source software developers. "
Falcon
Would GNU want to spend money to encourage use of closed source software?
As long as it helps spread FOOS I'd think GNU would be willing to spend the money.
FalconOk so I didn't read the whole thing, however as I just said in another post not five minutes ago, hardly anything has even been said about whether there is even any need for GMOs, and I contend there isn't a need. If there is no need, other than lining the pockets of Monsanto and other corporations, why have them?
FalconAnything that has an adverse effect.
If a GMO escapes into the wild, then most likely it will be wiped out by the native species.
Then superweeds resistant to Roundup don't exist? I just realized something, despite all this debate on GE and GMOs nothing has really been said about any need for GMOs, the fact is is they are not needed.
FalconKeeping an open mind is a great idea - which is why I'm not going to boycott GMO foods just because they are new.
Good for you. As for myself, I want choice and if I want to wait until GMOs are thoroughly tested I need labels stating if an item is or uses any GMOs. Can we agree on labeling? But if you ask Monsanto or other providers and venders they are against labeling for GMOs. If GMOs are so good these people would be fighting for labeling, they could use it as a selling point saying how good GMOs are. Companies lobbied in Europe though to stop mandatory labels. When the EU required mandatory labeling though the US and US businesses sued the EU in the WTO against it: "Final WTO Tribunal Decision on GMO Policy Reaffirms Lower Panel: WTO Wades into Food Fight, but Stops Short of Ruling Against Underlying GMO Policy"
FalconBesides, fining MS is like siphoning your water from the Niagara falls - sure you get wet but you don't make a dent. I have held the view for a long time that fines for companies should be based on a percentage setting, that way firms of all sizes are hit more equally. Or maybe a formula based on size, income and percentage - there must be an improvement on current methods of setting penalties.
I read somewhere where EU rules allow a fine of 5% of a company's worldwide revenue. Seeing as how MS's 2007 revenue was 51,122,000,000 the fine could of been as high as $2.5B. Or is it 5% of profits? With profits of $40,429,000,000 that would still be more than 2B dollars. So this fine is nothing more than a light slap on the wrist.
Falconit's not meant to be about putting Microsoft's products in the public domain, is it?
It wasn't about putting MS's products into the public domain, it was about making it possible to create interoperability and for software developers to write software compatible with MS software. No source code is required to be released at all.
FalconWell, it's a start at least. What did the US do about Microsofts monopoly?
After Clinton's Justice Department had Microsoft on the ropes Bush's new JD didn't even slap MS on the wrists. Of course Bush's admin is more big business friendly.
FalconThey do mention open source developers explicitly, so yes, I do think the point is to make us happy.
I don't think 10,000 euros is very open source developer friendly, unless you can get 10,000 developers to contribute to a fund then pass around the specs. But there's still the licenses to be paid to MS.
FalconI'm not ignoring cross pollination of corn. You keep insisting that corn cross pollinates with pigweed. It doesn't. Period.
No I don't insist corn cross pollinates with ragweed no matter what you say, instead I admit I don't know what happened. I also admit Horizontal gene transfer is possible. Oh, and if it's impossible for unrelated plants to cross pollinate, perhaps you should tell Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena that as well as other scientists:
"Transgenic pollen and baby bees"
"Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena, is reported to have new evidence, as yet unpublished, that genes engineered into transgenic plants have transferred via pollen to bacteria and yeasts living in the gut of bee larvae(1)."
"If Prof. Kaatz' claim can be substantiated, it indicates that the new genes and gene-constructs introduced into transgenic crops and other transgenic organisms can spread, not just by ordinary cross-pollination or cross-breeding to closely related species, but by the genes and gene-constructs invading the genomes (the totality of the organisms' own genetic material) of completely unrelated species, including the microorganisms living in the gut of animals eating transgenic material."
"This finding is not unexpected. Some scientists have been drawing attention to this possibility recently(2), but the warnings actually date back to the mid-1970s when genetic engineering began. Hundreds of scientists around the world are now demanding a moratorium on all environmental releases of transgenic organisms on grounds of safety(3), and horizontal gene transfer is one of the major considerations."
"Some of us have argued that the hazards of 'horizontal' gene transfer to unrelated species are inherent to genetic engineering(4). The genes and gene-constructs created in genetic engineering have never existed in billions of years of evolution. They consist of genetic material originating from bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance genes. They are designed to cross all species barriers and to invade genomes. The spread of such genes and gene-constructs have the potential to make infectious diseases untreatable and to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases."
Notice where is says "completely unrelated species".
Rather biased there, isn't it?
And not accepting it because it has a bias isn't being biased either? I admit it's one thing to falsify data or whatever, but are they doing that?
Hardly seems to be good science to me.
And your not doing the same? If it's wrong, what's wrong with it? The same with the Horizontal Gene Transfer linked to above (Transgenic pollen)?
FalconOkay, so you are claiming that horizontal gene transfer took place between corn and the weed.
No I'm not claiming, saying, it happened, I'm saying it's possible, I even included a link that explained how it could. Do you accept that it could happen or do you only accept natural selection? As for whether it did or not I don't know. And isn't that what science is supposed to do, look at all the possibilities?
Just as with Sky diving, in science an open mind is valuable. Though I can be stubborn at tymes, seeing as how the docs and therapists said being stubborn kept me alive after an accident I should of died from being stubborn can be good (though bad in my case), I try to keep an open mind and have been known to change it.
FalconThat means that all authority is under constant threat and any hierarchical chain of command is very uncertain.
As far as I'm concerned all authority should be questioned and afraid. Government becomes dictatorial when it does not fear the population it governs.
Thomas Aquinas
Unfortunately I don't recall much about Thomas Aquinas. I thought he wrote "The Apology" but doing a quick search all I found was the "Apology" Plato wrote in defense of Socrates.
Falcon
Damn my memory!it sounds like a lot of work would be required for your average OSS project to comply with this ruling. If it's unfair to expect it of them, why is it fair to expect it of a business?
I don't really know much about it but it seems an "average" OSS project being nonprofit won't have the financial resources a business will have. MS has a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars and a fraction of that should be enough to document all the APIs, system calls, or whatever. If MS isn't already documenting them then they need to work on their business practices, how does one team or unit know how to work with something from another unit or team?
You can't use a requirement that a monopoly allow interoperability as an excuse to get access to all their source code and trade secrets
I haven't heard anything about the source code being required, where did you see that?
FalconWhen I first RTFA and saw that line I hoped she meant she paid for her own meal and not his.
Falcon